SMA wanted to build a hotel on site, the State Government agreed and gave them funding, that is completely crystal clear. the whole secrative part is a bit laughable though, why would the SMA tell people what it wants to do before it has things approved?

What is going on now is people against the development are trying to find ways in which to stop it if the State Government have been sloppy in their approval process (which is what oppositions to things do and is perfectly fine.).

In terms of a loan from a Bank, I can't speak for them but it would be incredibly difficult for SMA to get money because it is isn't the income earning entities that own it (that is SACA and SANFL).
But CBA would be able to approve a short term limit given there is a defined clearance source which is impeccable.

But lets be completely honest here, the only reason Labor are interested is because they are looking for a political win, nothing more nothing less (which is exactly the same as the Liberals in opposition) and the ACC is simply trying to regain some power that it has lost after decades of inaction.

I still can't see why people are getting so upset about this Hotel though, it really shouldn't be this big of a deal.

No it shouldn’t be such a big deal. But the secrecy, haste, contempt for other stakeholders and downright ugliness of the design have made it up bit uphill for them so far. The implementation of this plan in the public sphere to date has been appallingly managed. Perhaps if the SMA and Government has been a little more consultative, and called for competitive tenders for the design, and been more upfront about the financing, it would have a bit more support.

I still can't see why people are getting so upset about this Hotel though, it really shouldn't be this big of a deal.

Is this hotel a unique one of a kind thing that doesn't set any precedent? If so then it's fair to be asking if this one chance for doing this is being used wisely.

Is it setting a precedent for commercial development in the parklands? If so then it's definitely fair for people to be digging deep into the merits of it and if it benefits the State.

I fail to see howe it sets a precedent at all.

Which means you're of the "this is a unique one off development" mindset I assume? In which case shouldn't all the relevant parties have an opportunity to assess if this one of a kind development is as good as possible?

Developer: "I want to build in the parklands"
Govt and Council: "You're not allowed to - they're parklands"
Developer: "Well, you let that mob do it"
Govt and Council: "They're not you"
Developer: "See you in court - there's a precedent for building in the Parklands - if you don't let me build in the parklands you're being biased against me"
Govt and Council: "But we said at the time that they would be the only ones"
Developer: "Well that's biased too. See you in court"
Developer 2: "Hey! I'm jumping on this bandwagon!"
Developer 3: "Me too!"
People of South Australia: 'What's going to happen to our parklands???"
Developers: "The Parklands have had their day. This is all ripe for development now. The precedent's been set"
Govt and Council: "Oh shit!"

Developer: "I want to build in the parklands"
Govt and Council: "You're not allowed to - they're parklands"
Developer: "Well, you let that mob do it"
Govt and Council: "They're not you"
Developer: "See you in court - there's a precedent for building in the Parklands - if you don't let me build in the parklands you're being biased against me"
Govt and Council: "But we said at the time that they would be the only ones"
Developer: "Well that's biased too. See you in court"
Developer 2: "Hey! I'm jumping on this bandwagon!"
Developer 3: "Me too!"
People of South Australia: 'What's going to happen to our parklands???"
Developers: "The Parklands have had their day. This is all ripe for development now. The precedent's been set"
Govt and Council: "Oh shit!"

You forgot the prequel:
Govt: "The parklands are 'under-utilized' and the area needs to be activated."
Developer: "I will make the parklands fun by building things on it"
Govt: "Ok! Just this once..."
Council: "We need to have input in this so we look productive. Hey developer, I'm not a fan of this development. Please stop."
Developer: "nah, I don't want to. You're a bunch of NIMBYs, you're holding Adelaide back!! You suck. let me build this right now!!"
Govt: "Did you hear them. They want to build it! Stop holding Adelaide back!!"
Council: "Ok just this once... but I'm not a fan."
Council: *pats on own back.* "I did a good job"
Developer: "Adelaide needs this otherwise it will be a backwater"
Govt: "What did you say?!" We're not a backwater!! Let's fast-track this proposal and make the parklands fun by building things on it"
Developer: "Ok"
Govt: "hah we sure showed them."

SMA Finance " We are losing money and need to find another revenue stream"
SMA Management " Increase the price of water!!"
SMA Finance " We are still losing money and need to find additional revenue streams"
SMA Management " Increase the price of beer!!"
SMA Finance " Now the Electricity bill has increased, we're losing money again"
SMA Management " 1. Get one staff member to be cashier of two lines at the kiosks. 2. Close half the kiosks if its not a full house. 3. Cut all costs wherever possible, we can't increase pricing any more"
SMA Finance " If we continue like this we will continue to lose money. The function rooms and restaurant are empty 320 days of the year"
SMA Management " I know a way to fill the restaurant and function rooms more days of the year....Let's build a hotel"

5 years from now

SMA Finance " The hotel is losing money"
SMA Management "How are we going to repay that loan?"
SMA Finance " Never mind, the taxpayer has it covered"

The whole thing is unraveling in real time at the inquiry, dodgy government and SMA behaviour, inflated executive pay packets, confused treasury officials, and now the financially largest tenant has blindsided them with a withering attack on the project and the SMA itself.

If the CBA offer was accepted for 70% of the value of the loan then the govt would only need to lend the remaining 30% ie $12.6m vs the whole $42m. Not sure why this isn’t considered or still an option?

how good is he wrote:If the CBA offer was accepted for 70% of the value of the loan then the govt would only need to lend the remaining 30% ie $12.6m vs the whole $42m. Not sure why this isn’t considered or still an option?

Because CBA probably expects 30% equity, not another loan (similar to banks taking your other loans into account when pricing a home loan) ? I assume there might also be issues which loan is more senior and gets repaid first in case of failure.